Originally Posted by
.Sarcastix.
You put forth good arguments, but I think you may have misunderstood me or I haven't included somethings I should have, therefore I'll explain my argument differently, the following paragraphs do not follow in relation your arguments:
From your arguments, you seem have a narrow view on the origin of objects, of course every object in existence is naturally based because its components are, but intelligent interference creates another form of object, for example; man-made objects, in almost every case, can be described as not being natural in origin as the object could not occur naturally without the intelligent interference. Using your example of a computer, no I don't know 'fully' how a computer works, but they are manmade and using our present understanding, computers do not occur naturally in the world we live in, therefore is it not natural but due to our understanding that it can be made using intelligent interference it can therefore be viewed as not supernatural. Take this example in a common saying that if you demonstrated your ability to create fire using a lighter and presented this to those of pre-history, most likely they would perceive you as something higher than a mere human, using it relation to the topic, they could perceive you are a supernatural being capable of unexplainable abilities at that time. I know the computer example can prove your view that it can be unnatural, but it can also prove that there are more origins than simply natural and unnatural as every object can be traced back to being natural depending on how far back you go into it's creation,
Your example of the birds cracking snail shells with rocks is another example which can be shown as not being supernatural, as I explained in my earlier post; supernatural events are events which appear to occur under the influence of intelligent interference which is not presently known to us. Intelligent interference is not limited to humanity as this is egotistical of humanity to make such a boast, therefore using your example, birds can be viewed as having this intelligence, which we are able to understand and accept, therefore birds cracking snail shells is not perceived as being supernatural.
From describing what I stated in the top paragraph, I will describe how your definition supernatural can be confusing. Any object which is created via man or any other animal capable of intelligent interference can be viewed as being unnatural, but this is where your definition becomes confusing as you stated that supernatural is where something does not occur in nature, which is the definition of unnatural, but supernatural is something which occurs by intelligent interference which cannot, as yet be understood, therefore it cannot be unnatural because we cannot prove that intelligent interference has taken part and therefore can be viewed a natural. This also creates a problem as it cannot occur naturally without intelligent interference, so what can it be defined as. This is where supernatural definitions take place. As it cannot be proven to occur naturally and cannot be proven to be influenced by intelligent interference, an unexplainable intelligence must be in influencing it, one which is capable of a higher ability that humanity, therefore ‘super’ by definition (super as in, having a greater ability than humanity). Supernatural is a definition for unexplainable occurrences which cannot be explained as of yet. It justifies that the occurrence exists without intelligent interference, but rejects that it cannot exist without it, the occurrence rejects both natural and unnatural definitions, therefore an addition definition must be used until the occurrence can be explained, then it is capable of falling into either the natural or unnatural definitions. A supernatural example can be used in this, UFOs as said to travel at at least the speed of light, otherwise it would take immense amounts of time to travel, longer than our expected lifelines, but as yet we are unable to understand how this is possible. Because we do know that intellgent interfence must be taking part in this occurrence, its rejects the natural definition, but we are as yet uncapable of understanding this intelligent inteference, despite knowing it exists, therefore we must define it as supernatural is it is intelligent interference that is of a higher ability and comprehension than our own.
I would write more but it's 4am and I'm tired :P. I know I've left some loop holes in my arguments and the last example probably has the biggest one, but I had already wrote a lot of it when I noticed and couldn't be bothered to change it, I do have the knowing of the loop holes and ways to remove them, but I'll leave them open cause I can't be arsed to write anymore.
